t is
> at?
backends arround 50 -100 I don't use pgBouncer yet.
Sysstat reports veeery low io.
Right now Im checking out fsm parameter, as Scott recomended. Seems
there is the problem.
>
> On 9/11/07, Ruben Rubio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I having the sa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping website, restarting
>> database, vacuumm it, run again website. But I guess this is going to
>> happen again.
>>
>> I would like to detect and solve the problem. Any idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I having the same problem I told here a few weeks before. Database is
using too much resources again.
I do a vacumm full each day, but seems it is not working. I am preparing
an update to postgres 8.2.4 (actually I am using at 8.1.3, and tests f
fine? Maybe database should need
a restart? I really don't know.
Does someone had a similar problem?
Thanks in advance,
Ruben Rubio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Note: I have already vacumm full. It does not solve the problem.
I have a postgres 8.1 database. In the last days I have half traffic
than 4 weeks ago, and resources usage is twice. The resource monitor
graphs also shows hight peaks (usually th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> You don't have vacuum_cost_delay set, do you? How long does normal
> vacuum run?
vacuum_cost_delay = 100
No idea how long will take normal vacuum. I ll try tonight when there is
not too much load.
>
> The manual suggests dropping all indexes be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Vacuum full is very slow for me . I dont know how to speed it up. It
takes between 60 and 90 minutes.
I have set up autovacuum but I also run vacuum full once per week.
The slowest parts in the vacuum full output are :
INFO: "a": moved 14076 r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> so, imo alexander is correct:
>> contacto varchar(255)
Why do we have limits on this, for example?
contacto varchar(255)
1) First of all, this is a web application. People use to enter really
strange thinks there, and a lot of rubbish. So, as s
this
AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM ficha vf WHERE idestado IN ('3', '4') AND
vf.idficha = c.idfile);
it is really fast.
Thanks to everybody.
Regards,
Ruben Rubio
Heikki Linnakangas escribió:
> You could try rewriting the query like this:
>
> SELECT MAX(idcomment)
&
-Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ruben Rubio
> Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 2:05 AM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Cc:
> Subject: [PERFORM] Optimization of this SQL sentence
>
> This SQL sentence is very simple. I need to get better
haps you could post the details
> of the tables (columns, indexes),and some info on what version of postgres
> you are using.
>
> Are the tables recently analyzed ? How many rows in them ?
>
> Greg Williamson
> DBA
> GlobeXplorer LLC
>
>
> -Original Message-
tual
time=141.004..141.004 rows=6282 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on ficha vf (cost=0.00..1403.00 rows=178
width=4) (actual time=0.071..97.885 rows=6282 loops=1)
Filter: (((idestado)::text = '3'::text) OR
((idestado)::text = '4'::text))
Total runtime: 188.809 ms
T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If subquerys are not working I think you should try to create a view
with the subquery.
Maybe it will work.
Patrice Beliveau wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Patrice Beliveau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
> SELECT * FROM TABLE
> WHERE TABLE.COL
ce.
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ruben Rubio):
>> Hi, I have a question with shared_buffer.
>>
>> Ok, I have a server with 4GB of RAM
>> -
>> # cat /proc/meminfo
>> MemTotal: 4086484 kB
>> [...]
>> -
>>
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, I have a question with shared_buffer.
Ok, I have a server with 4GB of RAM
- -
# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 4086484 kB
[...]
- -
So, if I want to, for example, shared_buffer to take 3 GB of RAM then
shared_buffer would be 393216 (3 *
Seems autovacumm is working fine. Logs are reporting that is being useful.
But server load is high. Is out there any way to stop "autovacumm" if
server load is very high?
Thanks everyone!!!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our e
Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 13.06.2006, at 8:44 Uhr, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Tonight database has been vacumm full and reindex (all nights
database do it)
Now its working fine. Speed is as spected. I ll be watching that sql
...
Maybe the problem exists when database is busy, or maybe its
Tonight database has been vacumm full and reindex (all nights database
do it)
Now its working fine. Speed is as spected. I ll be watching that sql ...
Maybe the problem exists when database is busy, or maybe its solved ...
---(end of broadcast)---
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:05:06AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:38:57PM +0200, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours)
In
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:58:49PM +0200, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
$DIREC/vacuumdb -f -v --analyze vacadb 2>&1 | $LOGBIN
$DIRLOGS/%Y-%m-%d_limpieza.log
echo "reindex database vacadb;" | $DIREC/psql vacadb 2>&1 | $LOGBIN
$DIRLOGS/%Y-%m-%d_limp
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/12/06, Ruben Rubio Rey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have two similar servers, one in production and another
for testing purposes. In testing server ~1sec ... in
production ~50 secs
What ver of PostgreSQL?
Version 8.1.3
Same ver on both systems?
Gábriel Ákos wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
Im having a problem with postgres 8.1.3 on a Fedora Core 3 (kernel
2.6.9-1.667smp)
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours)
In the testing server
Hi,
Im having a problem with postgres 8.1.3 on a Fedora Core 3 (kernel
2.6.9-1.667smp)
I have two similar servers, one in production and another for testing
purposes.
Databases are equal (with a difference of some hours)
In the testing server, an sql sentence takes arround 1 sec.
In produc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 May 2006, at 16:21, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
I have a web page, that executes several SQLs.
So, I would like to know witch one of those SQLs consumes more CPU.
For example,
I have SQL1 that is executed in 1.2 secs and a SQL2 that is executed
in 200 ms.
But
Hi,
I have a web page, that executes several SQLs.
So, I would like to know witch one of those SQLs consumes more CPU.
For example,
I have SQL1 that is executed in 1.2 secs and a SQL2 that is executed in
200 ms.
But SQL2 is executed 25 times and SQL1 is executed 1 time, so really
SQL2 consum
Did you tried to index the expression?
Did it work?
Doron Baranes wrote:
Ok. But that means I need a trigger on the original column to update the
new column on each insert/update and that overhead.
-Original Message-
From: Ruben Rubio Rey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday
I think that the problem is the GROUP BY (datetime) that is
date_trunc('hour'::text, i.entry_time)
You should create an indexe with this expression (if its possible).
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/indexes-expressional.html
If is not possible, I would create a column with value
Greg Quinn wrote:
The query is,
select * from users
which returns 4 varchar fields, there is no where clause
Yes, I am running the default postgres config. Basically I have been a
MySQL user and thought I would like to check out PostGreSql. So I did
a quick performance test. The performance
Tom Lane wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])<5000
AND array[20]<>0
AND array[21]<>0
...
AND array[50]<>0
AND array[51])&
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:41:50PM +0100, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
I have a select like
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])<5000
http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/
Hi,
I have a select like
SELECT (array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51]) as total
FROM table
WHERE
(array[20]+array[21]+ ... +array[50]+array[51])<5000
AND array[20]<>0
AND array[21]<>0
...
AND array[50]<>0
AND array[51])<>0
Any ideas to make this query faster?
-
Richard Huxton wrote:
Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Hi,
I think im specting problems with a 7.4.8 postgres database.
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms in
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:05:57AM +0100, Ruben Rubio Rey wrote:
Sometimes some big query takes between 5 to 15 seconds. It happens
sometimes all the day it does not depend if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms in normal circunstances
nd if database is busy.
I have measured that sentence in 15 - 70 ms in normal circunstances.
Why sometimes its takes too much time?
How can I fix it?
Is a postgres version problem, database problem or query problem?
Any ideas will be apreciatted.
Ruben Rubio
---(end of broa
much time?
How can I fix it?
Is a postgres version problem, database problem or query problem?
Any ideas will be apreciatted.
Ruben Rubio
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
capacity or capacity and prices
I have no experience working with arrays on a table. Is it fast?
Witch one do u think will have better performance?
Any good idea?
I hope this is enouth information.
Thanks in advance,
Ruben Rubio Rey
---(end of broadcast
36 matches
Mail list logo
